China Launches Space Station Laboratory Module

Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? by acidradio · 2011-09-29 05:51 · Score: 4, Funny

Will they make sneering faces at each other? Rude hand gestures? Will they "haze" the other space station? Teepee their solar collectors in the night? Will the ISS astronauts pop in from time to time to borrow a cup of sugar? Host a friendly neighborhood barbecue?

Re:Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-29 06:52 · Score: 2

Space program is (effectively) a part of military in all countries that do it. These technologies are so obviously dual-use that it would be a waste to do things differently.
Re:Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? by Dunbal · 2011-09-29 07:07 · Score: 1

if you have a space program that relies on private entities then the space program is doomed.
SpaceX. Discuss.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? by PyroMosh · 2011-09-29 07:16 · Score: 2

SpaceX isn't a space program, it's a launch service. It makes sense to be able to deliver stuff to orbit. We do this all the time and there is a commercial need.
There is less commercial demand for studying embryonic development in microgravity, or launching climate observation satellites or experimenting with solar sails.
The two can coexist, and even benefit from one another, but SpacX is *not* a space program by the traditional definition.

--
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Re:Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? by Vectormatic · 2011-09-29 07:32 · Score: 4, Funny

Have you learned nothing from how chinese immigrants behave in other countries? Now the guys up in the ISS finally can have cheap take-out and dry-cleaning!

--
People, what a bunch of bastards
Re:Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · 2011-09-29 07:36 · Score: 1

Space food stamps?
Re:Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? by AmiMoJo · 2011-09-30 11:15 · Score: 1

The difference is that we are now in a post-military era. The only time our armies get involved is when the opponent is vastly inferior, otherwise it is just posturing between nuclear states with arsenals of high tech weaponry.
Commerce is the new battleground and space launching is already big business. Like green energy it is the sort of thing that governments have to push because the economics don't work for individual companies, but we will soon be out of that phase and into full scale markets.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-30 11:23 · Score: 1

The difference is that we are now in a post-military era. The only time our armies get involved is when the opponent is vastly inferior, otherwise it is just posturing between nuclear states with arsenals of high tech weaponry.
You know, a lot of people thought the same during and after WW1, "the war to end all wars".
What we have in practice is the period of calm before the storms, when existing competing superpowers are either allied (US, Europe and friends), demoted (Russia), or still gathering strength (China). It's not a stable state of affairs.
Re:Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? by acidradio · 2011-09-30 16:16 · Score: 1

You are right. With cheap takeout and dry cleaning anything is possible! Maybe that is what the space race has been missing... affordability!

Clarke's naive miscalculation by elrous0 · 2011-09-29 05:53 · Score: 2

"In another universe (Arthur C. Clarke's 2011), it would be on its way to Europa by now.

Clarke naively believed NASA and the U.S. government when they said that the space race WASN'T just a Cold War pissing contest. He never figured in the possibility that once the U.S. had the capability to plant the Stars and Stripes on the moon that funding would be slashed.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation by Kuruk · 2011-09-29 05:56 · Score: 2

<quote><p>"In another universe (Arthur C. Clarke's 2011), it would be on its way to Europa by now.</p></quote>

<p>Clarke naively believed NASA and the U.S. government when they said that the space race WASN'T just a Cold War pissing contest. He never figured in the possibility that once the U.S. had the capability to plant the Stars and Stripes on the moon that funding would be slashed.</p></quote>

All the better. Bring on a new pissing contest. Good on China reaching for the stars. It not like we want too.
Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation by doconnor · 2011-09-29 06:04 · Score: 2

In Arthur C. Clarke's 2010 (not 2011), which was written before the cold war ended, the cold war was still going on into 2010 and they where still pissing away.
Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation by tgd · 2011-09-29 06:14 · Score: 1

Exactly. Part of the point of the story was the fact that the situation around Jupiter led to some (tense, somewhat hostile) partnerships between the US and the USSR.
In the book there was a three-way cold war between USSR, China and the US.
Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation by cornface · 2011-09-29 06:34 · Score: 1

In most of the sci-fi featuring near-future space travel in the era before we actually went to space it was rare to find an author who even considered that it would be a government monopoly that got us there.
Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-09-29 07:23 · Score: 2

Funding was slashed in 1968-'72 because of the increasing cost of the Vietnam War and costs of implementing LBJ's Great Society program. The Democratic Senators who had the power to cut NASA (like Mondale), went out of their way to go after it's funding for the Great Society programs. By the time Nixon took the White House, he ramped up Vietnam to force the North to the peace talks (which worked by late 1972) and the Democrats hated him, so there was very little he could push.
We are lucky Congress didn't close NASA down from '72-'77
Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation by cornface · 2011-09-29 07:40 · Score: 1

Oh, no, I, missed, a, comma.
(You missed an entire word, though.)
(And you are garbage.)
Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation by doconnor · 2011-09-29 08:21 · Score: 1

War is great for technological development, not so great for all the killing people. The nice thing about the Cold War was that we had all the technological development without that much killing (of course, millions died in the proxy wars). However, the risk of global nuclear war was worse then the benefits of technology.
Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation by damburger · 2011-09-29 09:17 · Score: 1

And, bizarrely, this mistake is repeated by modern libertarian/neoliberal space advocates, who are certain that SpaceX and Bigelow can beat the Chinese without any government help at all. This is nothing but fantasy.

--
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation by webmistressrachel · 2011-09-29 12:49 · Score: 1

First off, I can see your HTML... in my modern browser, and I shouldn't. That's rude.
Second, "It's not like we want to."

--
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation by thrich81 · 2011-09-29 15:32 · Score: 1

Funding was slashed in 1968-'72 because the NASA funding in the mid '60s was unsustainable. In 1966 the NASA budget was almost 4.5% of the entire federal budget -- more than 1 dollar out of every 25 spent by the feds went to NASA. This was possible only because it was perceived by the US public as a race against the Russians and another arena of the Cold War. NASA's budget dried up in the late '60s and early '70s because the public didn't care any more -- after Apollos 11 and 12 the US had 'won' and the public was done with it. Apollo 13's drama brought in some interest, but by 1971 and Apollo 14, the public really was no longer interested. Your implication that Nixon "wanted to fund NASA" and the democrats stopped him is bizarre and false -- I have to say I've never heard that one before. NASA of the '60s was a Democrat creation and Johnson as Vice-President and President was its most important booster/sponsor. Without Kennedy and Johnson (both of them) there would have been no Apollo. Look up Eisenhower's attitude toward space exploration and NASA -- he wanted nothing of them and was forced only by Sputnik to even allow any of it to go forward in his term with hardware already available -- von Braun could have launched the first artificial satellite in 1956 and was ordered not to. And recall, Nixon was Eisenhower's VP -- he obviously wasn't lobbying for spaceflight as VP, why would he care as President?

Good for them by LordNacho · 2011-09-29 05:54 · Score: 2

The Chinese seem willing to spend the money on space tech. Someones gotta carry the flag. Unbelievable how long it's been since people were walking the moon.

Re:Good for them by denis-The-menace · 2011-09-29 06:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

The states had the money, too.
But they just spent it on more important things:
-Liberating oil in Irak.
-Molesting the terrorists out of our shorts.
-Covering rich people for bad bets in the stock market

--
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Re:Good for them by Kuruk · 2011-09-29 06:09 · Score: 1

I agree 100%.

For instance. The moon is not important to the USA anymore. Been there done that rite ?

Lets see what happen when china populates it.

Good for them.
Re:Good for them by Bardwick · 2011-09-29 06:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's actually free. Just using interest on all the money that they've loaned out.. So hey, why not? heh.
Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-29 06:39 · Score: 1

Don't forget: in 2010, we spent nearly 1 trillion on welfare (not counting social security), 164 billion on interest on the debt, and about 19 billion on NASA. It's more than just war and bailouts - our 'food stamp nation' is a pretty big drain as well.
Re:Good for them by LordNacho · 2011-09-29 06:48 · Score: 1

Mate, if you spend money on goods and services from China, that money isn't yours anymore. It may have come from you, but you swapped it for iPhones.
Anyway, I'm not a taxpayer in either state. I just want to see someone carrying human technology forward.
Re:Good for them by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-29 06:54 · Score: 1

Soviet Union spent most of its budget on welfare (being a socialist state and all), which didn't prevent it from having a developed space program.
China also has state welfare programs such as unemployment insurance and medical care.
You do need a healthy population for it to be productive, and you do need it to be productive to provide the industrial base for space exploration. The problem isn't with social welfare as such, it's about doing it right.
Re:Good for them by Coren22 · 2011-09-29 07:12 · Score: 1

It is quite possible to populate the moon. You are just an ignorant jerk who prefers to poo poo everything everyone else pushes for.
No air? Bring some up or make it there from the plentiful water in the poles
No water? Bull shit, we have found enough water on the moon for a base
No soil? What exactly is the moon made of than?
No magnetosphere? So what? Build the habitats underground, and the food production areas in domes.
It benefits many things on Earth, and would provide more living space, and the ability to expand further into space, which benefits everyone here on Earth.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Good for them by Dunbal · 2011-09-29 07:25 · Score: 2

it benefits no one.
I know a few astronomers who would give their right testicle to be able to put a telescope somewhere where there is no air and no magnetosphere. And preferably on the far side of the moon to get rid of light from that pesky blue thing in the middle of the sky. Don't write off a "moon base" just yet, there are legitimate uses.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Good for them by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-09-29 07:29 · Score: 2

There is a historical precedence for going somewhere and then not going back for a while.
The first English colony in North America was established in 1585 at Roanoke, a second voyage there in 1590 found it missing, there was not an attempt by the English to colonize North America again until 1607. And going to North America from western Europe was much, much easier than going from the Earth to the Moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roanoke_Colony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_colonization_of_North_America
Re:Good for them by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-09-29 07:37 · Score: 1

Neither China or the Soviet Union made it to the moon, neither China, the Soviet Union or Russian Federation have send deep space probes to the outer planets.
While the Soviets landed on Mars and Venus, they never mapped those planets, the Chinese and Russians have not landed rovers on Mars, had probes orbit Jupiter or Saturn, only the US and ESA have accomplished extended scientific exploration of Mars.
When the Chinese or Russia get four space probes past the orbit of Pluto, land on Titan, get rovers on Mars and drop a probe into Jupiter, then they are up in the same tier the US is.
Re:Good for them by Danathar · 2011-09-29 07:40 · Score: 1

No. The U.S. Federal Government had the money too, not the "States". There is a difference.
Re:Good for them by LordNacho · 2011-09-29 07:49 · Score: 1

I suppose that makes sense. Pioneering journeys can be expensive.
Re:Good for them by 2short · 2011-09-29 07:58 · Score: 1

L2 is better and cheaper. Besides, putting a telescope on the moon is no reason to put people there. Astronomers today largely use remotely controlled telescopes on the other side of the earth just to avoid having to work the night shift.
Re:Good for them by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-09-29 08:01 · Score: 1

Imagine how bad manned space flight would have been defunded if the US had spent a zillion dollars on a manned lunar station and have everyone there die like Roanoke* did.
* - no one really knows what happened to Roanoke, but there is no wandering off with Lunar tribe and disappearing on the Moon.
Re:Good for them by ColdWetDog · 2011-09-29 08:18 · Score: 1

Actually, the Vikings predated the English by quite a bit (6 centuries), but yes, economic colonization often takes decades to centuries.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Good for them by ColdWetDog · 2011-09-29 08:22 · Score: 1

If mankind had been as prissyfooted as Homo Americanus, we'd still be sucking our thumbs in a South African cave peering out at the scary ungulates. Somewhere we lost our cojones big time.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Good for them by damburger · 2011-09-29 08:27 · Score: 1

Not Really
As a % of nominal GDP, China spends about the same as most ESA member states (0.02% by my calculation) compared to the real big players USA (0.13%) and Russia (0.26%)
Don't ask me for a reference. I literally just worked this out myself from numbers off wikipedia (which are themselves well referenced enough). If you are skeptical, just repeat the calculation.
China isn't especially focused on space travel, or manned space travel - its just a big economy, and its found a way to do manned spaceflight cheap.

--
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Re:Good for them by roman_mir · 2011-09-29 08:37 · Score: 1

Actually, that stuff is also done with plenty of Chinese money. Some is borrowed and some is stolen from China (and everybody) via inflation.
So Chinese are doing quite a lot in the world via their US proxy :)

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Good for them by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-29 08:43 · Score: 1

And lo, their economy was decimated.

Are you seriously saying that it was social welfare that decimated Soviet economy? Rather than, say, the fact that 75% of it was either direct manufacture or backing infrastructure for the military industrial complex?
Re:Good for them by LordNacho · 2011-09-29 10:12 · Score: 1

It's big and getting bigger, so you can see why I'm hopeful. Plus they seem to like the international spotlight (olympic games were huge for them), so perhaps they'll keep spending on space.
With the US, you just get the feeling people are tired of science. You don't the sense of wonderment about the world. Science seems to be a declining form of entertainment. All simply a vibe I'm getting, of course, nothing I can document.
Re:Good for them by tragedy · 2011-09-29 10:48 · Score: 1

So, no second attempt for 17 years. Whereas no-one has been to the moon in nearly 39 years and it looks like even if someone sat down and planned out and funded a mission tomorrow, it would still take a decade to actually happen. So, best case scenario is looking like 50 years from the last Apollo mission to the next moon landing.
Re:Good for them by DerekLyons · 2011-09-29 13:25 · Score: 1

The Chinese seem willing to spend just enough money on space tech to impress the impressionable.
There, fixed that for you.

Seriously, most of the posters on Slashdot are worse than the worst Tea Partiers when it comes to exaggerating facts and events in order to work themselves up into a panic. The fact is, China has just enough of a space program to show the world that they are a Serious Nation and a World Player - and not a Yuan's worth more. They aren't going to the Moon anytime soon, and at their current pace they'll have a space station roughly matching the capabilities of the Soviet Alamaz (circa 1973) sometime in the 2020's.
Re:Good for them by IrquiM · 2011-09-29 23:52 · Score: 1

Actually, the first two issues you raise doesn't cost that much - it's by far the last one that is creating the problems for US.

--
This is blinging
Re:Good for them by mrxak · 2011-09-30 03:51 · Score: 1

Trade imbalance? No, not unless you're displeased with the price you paid for Chinese goods, in which case, you shouldn't have paid that price. As long as you're paying the price that a good is worth to get the good, there is no imbalance.
The nice thing about a currency economy is you can trade magical pieces of paper that hold value for real physical objects and services that have value. Dollar bills and numbers in computers are nice and all to have, but they are worthless unless you can exchange them for things you want to own. The Chinese may be ending up with more magical pieces of paper than us, but we end up with all the stuff we want. And the Chinese are pretty smart too, they spend all their magical pieces of paper for things they want, some of which are sold by us, and some of which are sold by other people we give things to that they pay us for. We have plenty of stuff, more stuff than most, and somehow, keep being able to buy more stuff. Could it be because the China-USA trade relationship does not exist as a closed system? We're not being sucked dry, here, we're just involved in a worldwide marketplace where magical pieces of paper and physical goods and services are exchanged every which way constantly, and everyone is better off as a result.
Trade imbalances are a meaningless concept. Instead, ask yourself where you'd rather live, which country has the higher standard of living, i.e. more stuff owned, right now? The free market does result in a balancing of economies worldwide, as specialization happens, and people everywhere are able to get the goods they want, but ultimately it raises the standard of living for everyone. We should not fear China growing faster than the US, because they are starting from lower and because China won't end up doing better than us. We'll both end up doing better than us, and on a roughly equal standard of living. As the Chinese grow more wealthy, they'll be able to buy more of our stuff, which will give us more magical pieces of paper to buy even more of their stuff, and stuff from other places, and invest in specialization so we can sell even more stuff to China and other places too.

--
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You

docking port by hackingbear · 2011-09-29 05:58 · Score: 2

Are the docking ports compatible?

I read many years ago on Chinese media (can't find the source anymore) when they first launched Shenzhou that the docking port is imported from Russia for the explicit goal of compatibility with other vehicles as the Russian design is now the de factor standard.

Re:docking port by vakuona · 2011-09-29 06:21 · Score: 1

Russia distrusts China more than they distrust America. They are bloody neighbours too, so are more likely to have a conflict than Russia-USA or USA-China.
Re:docking port by DrData99 · 2011-09-29 06:23 · Score: 1

De Chinese Factory...
Re:docking port by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-29 06:56 · Score: 1

Doesn't stop Russia from selling its latest and greatest weapons to China.
Re:docking port by Dunbal · 2011-09-29 07:28 · Score: 1

Even though they are unquiet neighbors I think they can't afford to be hostile in the same way as the US and Canada can't be hostile. When you share such a vast land border it's best to be friends because just the cost of policing it in a serious fashion would break both nations.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:docking port by Dunbal · 2011-09-29 07:29 · Score: 1

he almost said defector - maybe it was a Freudian slip?

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:docking port by FhnuZoag · 2011-09-29 07:29 · Score: 1

Uh, Russia's been doing joint military exercises with China for quite a while. I'd say relations are pretty good.
Re:docking port by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-09-29 07:44 · Score: 1

That is because of a war between Russia and China the Russians know their only survival will be tanks and as a last resort nuclear strikes.
Note that what the Russians don't sell China are advanced tanks like T-90, T-80, advanced anti-tank weapons, advanced APCs, supersonic bombers or advanced armor defenses.
Tanks, armor defenses, and anti-tank weapons are what (to Soviet doctrine) win wars, not fighters and not SAMs
Re:docking port by FhnuZoag · 2011-09-29 08:00 · Score: 1

The Russians are selling T-90s to plenty of people. The Chinese aren't buying, because they prefer the indigenous Type 99 and Type 96 instead.
Re:docking port by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-09-29 08:15 · Score: 1

Read what I wrote "Note that what the Russians don't sell China are advanced tanks like T-90, T-80,"
Based on the combat record of Chinese armored vehicles since 1968, the Type 96 and 99 aren't going to be a threat to a true 3rd generation tank like the T-90, Abrams, LeClerc or Challenger 2.
Militaries buy British, German, Russian and American tanks. The only operators of the Type 99 and 96 are China and Pakistan (who codeveloped the models).
Re:docking port by ColdWetDog · 2011-09-29 08:24 · Score: 1

Are the docking ports compatible?
I read many years ago on Chinese media (can't find the source anymore) when they first launched Shenzhou that the docking port is imported from Russia for the explicit goal of compatibility with other vehicles as the Russian design is now the de factor standard.
Yes. Same one as on the Shuttle and ISS.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:docking port by FhnuZoag · 2011-09-29 08:28 · Score: 1

Only China operates the Type 99?
The Type 99 is probably not a match for the M1A2, but my impression is that it's at least equivalent to the T-90 - and why wouldn't it be? The T-90 has been around for a while and sold widely, and the Chinese have had plenty of time to examine it and steal its best ideas. It's also a good 7 tons heavier and you'd think the Chinese were doing something with those tons. Neither tank has much of a combat record, really, with the T-90 only having some anti-infantry activity in the Chechen war.
I guess my ultimate point is that the original poster's claim - that China-Russia relations are poor, and in particular more poor than Russia-US relations, doesn't really seem supported at all. Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Mission_2005 to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus_Frontier_2008
Re:docking port by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-29 08:42 · Score: 1

That is because of a war between Russia and China the Russians know their only survival will be tanks and as a last resort nuclear strikes.
Tanks without infantry and air support are dead meat on modern battlefield.
Re:docking port by Confusador · 2011-09-29 19:57 · Score: 1

There are several standards right now:
- Russia and Europe (Soyuz, Progress, and ATV) use SSVP, which is high impact so I can see why the Chinese avoided it.
- The Shuttle used APAS, which is what the Chinese are using to be compatible with ISS. (Originally developed for Soyuz-Apollo, so the Russians have it, but aren't using it.)
- The Japanese HTV and current US vehicles (Dragon, Cygnus) don't dock, they berth on the CBMs
- Commercial Crew will use ILIDS which is compatible with the actual standard, the International Docking System Standard that we'll all hopefully be using in the future.

military equipment by G3ckoG33k · 2011-09-29 06:00 · Score: 2, Informative

A few years ago the funding would have come as soon as China would start adding their military equipment there, too. Ironically, however, now China will just pull the financial rug under the US, or just squeeze those hairy a bit harder.

Re:military equipment by Kuruk · 2011-09-29 06:26 · Score: 1

Indeed. And they will bend over to do it as long as there is profit.
Re:military equipment by MasaMuneCyrus · 2011-09-29 07:03 · Score: 1

This is as tired of an argument as "they hate us for our freedom."
What China and the US have is the economic version of mutually-assured destruction.
China will be pulling no rug out from under the US. They're as fucked as we are.
Re:military equipment by Dunbal · 2011-09-29 07:19 · Score: 2

They're as fucked as we are.
Why? They have all of Latin America, India and Africa to sell to. It doesn't take long for those countries to catch up the US when economic growth in the US is virtually nil. The US by no means has the largest population in the world, so its economic importance can only shrink over time as others grow. Haven't you noticed how China has been very active signing trade agreements all over South and Central America lately? And with none of those bullshit "sign here but also you have to change your laws to match ours" clauses either.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:military equipment by HeckRuler · 2011-09-29 08:02 · Score: 1

Because they pin their currency to ours?

We've asked them not to, it kind of buggers up trade over here. But it keeps their workers undercutting ours, and China is riding the gravy train of manufacturing, so they're sticking with it. So even when our currency takes a hit and looks like a terrible investment, China still buys up our debt. Because if our dollar really tanks, theirs will too.

Eventually they'll have to unpin it. Their currency will then suffer some massive fluctuation as it corrects itself and the market reacts. They'll have a hard time of it. And after that, maybe the USA will be able to sell goods to china for a profit.
Re:military equipment by Dunbal · 2011-09-29 08:07 · Score: 1

You are a little bit behind on the news. The Yuan hasn't been pegged to the dollar for a while. The US doesn't like this, but they can no longer stop it. Of course this never makes the mainstream "AMERICA FUCK YEAH" news channels.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:military equipment by cyfer2000 · 2011-09-29 08:17 · Score: 1

In 2010, US export to China was 91.9 billion US dollar, to Hongkong was 26.6 billion US dollar.

--
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
Re:military equipment by PyroMosh · 2011-09-29 15:52 · Score: 1

I can only speculate, but it's possible China couldn't work with ISS if they wanted to.
NASA is now prohibited by U.S. law from cooperating with China in any way shape or form.
ISS is not an entirely NASA program, but NASA is the lead agency. However I have to believe that China was planning this before this law was passed.

--
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.

Orbit by Skylax · 2011-09-29 06:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

From my chinese coworkers I got the information that the module is currently in a 350km by 200km orbit at around 45 inclination.The finished station will consist of 3 modules at 20t each and has a designed lifetime of 2 years. It is basically used for testing purposes (docking procedures etc.) and will be manned by a 2-3 man crew with 20 day rotation.

Re:Orbit by ZankerH · 2011-09-29 06:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Actually, you've got two different programs mixed up. The Tiangong-1 (the one launched today) will not form a part of the larger space station, and the 2 years lifetime only refers to this experimental module. Also, the Tiangong-1 will first be visited by the unmanned Shenzhou 8 spacecraft (to launch this november), followed by two manned Shenzhou expeditions in 2012. They're only planning to built the 60 ton space station by 2020.
Re:Orbit by X0563511 · 2011-09-29 07:08 · Score: 1

Helpful, but can you get us the Kepler elements?

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

first step by schlachter · 2011-09-29 06:05 · Score: 2

China has begun its own effort to construct a space station that will one day look like this....exactly like this.

http://nationalspacestudiescenter.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/space-station-iss.jpg

--
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.

Re:first step by Dunbal · 2011-09-29 07:36 · Score: 1

And no one will be able to figure out the assembly instructions.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Can it be reached by NASA? by subreality · 2011-09-29 06:06 · Score: 5, Funny

Can it be reached by NASA

Unfortunately, no. NASA doesn't currently have a man-rated vehicle that can exceed about 60,000 feet.

The DOD can probably deliver a decent size payload to it, but their craft aren't exactly designed to dock in a diplomatic way.

Re:Can it be reached by NASA? by Kuruk · 2011-09-29 06:20 · Score: 1

NASA has been turned from science to profit.

Their new goal is to let Commercialization take to cost to explore space for profit. Once it happens they plan to jump on as customers.

In the mean time China will just go there. Should be interesting to see what happens.
Re:Can it be reached by NASA? by tibit · 2011-09-29 06:52 · Score: 1

NASA is mostly not in the manufacturing business. Pretty much all NASA hardware has been made by for-profit, publicly traded enterprises and their for-profit subcontractors. There's nothing new to what NASA is doing, except that they are looking for contractors who are leaner and not as wasteful as the legacy big boys.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:Can it be reached by NASA? by Rich0 · 2011-09-29 08:13 · Score: 1

Why would the DOD bother to de-orbit a civilian space station in a deniable way?
If they had any interest in doing that sort of thing they'd be doing it already on unmanned satellites. I doubt that they're going to start killing astronauts just to put a damper on space exploration.
And if they just wanted to destroy the thing they don't need some fancy spacecraft - a good old fashioned missile would do the trick.
Re:Can it be reached by NASA? by sznupi · 2011-09-29 08:32 · Score: 1

It's possible that the X37b could be refitted with docking equipment, though it's not manned.
That's unlikely for proper docking, with the port used by the Chinese; APAS looks like it could have problems fitting into the cargo hold of X-37B. And if it would fit, that would be one heck of an exercise in futility (with docking port most likely taking most of space and mass allowance; well, since there would be no need for hard, hermetic seal, I imagine it's possible to come up with much more basic, "dock only" version of APAS ...maybe folded one, deployable ...overcomplicated; and for what?). Oh, wait, that does start to sound like many ~manned US space efforts.

If anything, it would be funny if the specific flavour of docking port, used by this Chinese station, wouldn't let such visitor go - the outpost possibly having automatic emergency station-keeping procedures, maybe also more powerful orientation thrusters and more delta-V than X-37B; like you said, "contingencies" (though "for everything" would mean most are utterly stupid ...oh, wait)

Generally, provoking such cat & mouse games in LEO would be utterly stupid; the orbit is the ultimate asymmetric warfare battleground (say, take any medium rocket and launch a "satellite" of which by far the most massive part is a gravel container; such would not make much a difference for smaller players, orbital installations of which can be easily targeted individually as is - but they could be a massive headache on entities more invested in orbital installations), and we're possibly already not too far from Kessler Syndrome.

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Can it be reached by NASA? by Mercano · 2011-09-29 09:31 · Score: 1

There's actually a "dock only" version of APAS (well, really, its successor, LIDS) in orbit already. The soft capture mechanism, with a LIDS, was attached to the bottom of Hubble on the final servicing mission, so a spacecraft can later dock with Hubble and deoribit it when we're done with it, so we aren't left playing UARS/Skylab roulette.

--
#include <signature.h>
Re:Can it be reached by NASA? by tragedy · 2011-09-29 11:06 · Score: 1

A missile that can reach space and a spacecraft are the same thing.
Re:Can it be reached by NASA? by R3d+M3rcury · 2011-09-29 14:02 · Score: 1

Their new goal is to let Commercialization take to cost to explore space for profit. Once it happens they plan to jump on as customers.
I'm not sure I'd look at it that way.
I don't see any reason for the US Taxpayer to fund research and development of rockets that will transport people from the ground to LEO. We've spent 50 years doing that. I think that technology can easily be distributed to the private sector and let them compete with each other. It lowers the cost of getting into LEO and the ISS. That's a good thing.
Remember that part of the legacy of the Space Shuttle was that it was going to carry commercial and government payloads into space. This set back commercial space development in the US because no matter how cheap they made it, NASA could go lower.
So commercialization will lower the cost to get into space. But you still need a government to do the exploring once you get there.
Re:Can it be reached by NASA? by thed8 · 2011-09-30 00:05 · Score: 1

It can't be reached by NASA, it can only be reached when we (whoever that is) decide to return to being a super power and not the just good enough to get by power. Or some really big block of fast moving rock makes the point moot.
Re:Can it be reached by NASA? by Rich0 · 2011-09-30 01:46 · Score: 1

Yes, but a missile that can reach space and a "X37b" are not the same thing.
Re:Can it be reached by NASA? by sznupi · 2011-09-30 04:47 · Score: 1

Still the "X37b" is merely a payload of Atlas V, just "a missile that can reach space" (on a Russian main engine BTW)

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Can it be reached by NASA? by sznupi · 2011-09-30 05:22 · Score: 1

Ah, good. [1] Frankly, such practice should always be the standard; it's almost like we purposefully did some things in suboptimal way [2] just to give the glorified glider contraption some purpose... while STS was conceptually obsolete before it seriously got onto drawing boards, with automatic docking and routine return of big valuable (actually reused) equipment done since the 60s.

1. Note, I was laughing in that bit mostly from a possible overcomplicated folding version, probably required to fit into the X-37B cargo bay.

2. Also, say, space station modules which cannot dock themselves (in fact, IIRC there is some talk of retrofitting few "western style" in-storage ISS modules with small orbital tugs, launching them on typical expendable launcher, and docking them autonomously like all Russian and some European or Japanese modules do; which would almost certainly end up less expensive, more efficient, than launching such on STS was - including R&D and manufacture of the tugs)

PS. Deorbit Hubble or ...maybe another servicing mission? (but yeah, launching new one - obviously, not identical - would be probably more optimal; such approach is way overdue anyway, largest user of sats with, supposedly, some family resemblance, does just that; I can see a case for a more or less constant, low-intensity production of Hubble-likes - one to be launched every few years, incorporating latest imaging instruments, on an inexpensive expendable launcher; making scientists happy
...potentially making also the population at large happy, if only about how the tech and production resources, infrastructure & experience demanded by military are also put to some loftier goals; but I'm not sure the humanity has matured enough for that one)

--
One that hath name thou can not otter

a new take-out joint in space? by thejuggler · 2011-09-29 06:08 · Score: 1, Funny

More importantly, can the guys on ISS order take-out from the new Chinese space station?

Re:a new take-out joint in space? by tgd · 2011-09-29 06:18 · Score: 1

Chinese take-out is an American invention.
Re:a new take-out joint in space? by anyGould · 2011-09-29 06:33 · Score: 1

So, can the guys on the new Chinese space station order take-out from the ISS?
Re:a new take-out joint in space? by amicusNYCL · 2011-09-29 06:34 · Score: 1

Chinese take-out is an American invention.
Yeah, and as we all know, the Chinese never copy anything from America.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:a new take-out joint in space? by S.O.B. · 2011-09-29 07:07 · Score: 1

Really? You think Americans created the concept of selling prepared Chinese food to take it home?
Now I'll concede that "American Chinese food" bares little resemblance to the food served in China but I'd be willing to bet that markets in China were selling prepared food before the pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock.

--
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.

Re:Debris-Reduction Incentive by Jeng · 2011-09-29 06:10 · Score: 1

I still think a small satellite with a couple solid state lasers could effectively nudge space junk into the atmosphere without being a threat to other space fairing nations.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.

Deja Vu by Synerg1y · 2011-09-29 06:17 · Score: 1

Another country re-inventing the wheel,

According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_station#List_of_space_stations

the wheel is hard to reinvent based on the failures.

Re:Deja Vu by Coren22 · 2011-09-29 07:21 · Score: 1

That chart needs a price column...

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Funny? by subreality · 2011-09-29 06:18 · Score: 2

Slashdot needs a "Sad but true" moderation option. :/

Re:Funny? by Coren22 · 2011-09-29 07:17 · Score: 1

Exactly. We should have a "enter your own" mod option...

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Funny? by punkmanandy · 2011-09-29 09:39 · Score: 1

It does. It's called a reply. I see you've found it.

Re:Made in China by ThePhilips · 2011-09-29 06:21 · Score: 1

Is it going to break after 2 or 3 uses like every piece of junk made in China?

Unlikely. That type of junk is reserved for import into US and EU. Chinese keep the good stuff for themselves.

--
All hope abandon ye who enter here.

Looks familiar by pesho · 2011-09-29 06:22 · Score: 2

The schematic kind of reminds me of the old Russian Salyut station

Re:Looks familiar by Mercano · 2011-09-29 09:18 · Score: 1

Wouldn't be the first time the Chinese have borrowed space technology from the Russians; the Shenzhou spacecraft is awfully similar to Soyuz. On the other hand, physics are physics, regardless of what country your in, so and there really are only a few useful hull configurations. No one is surprised when a fighter jet looks like externally similar to a Russian or American one.
By the way, the Salyut design is still alive and well. Zvezda, the ISS service module, is a direct decedent. Salyut 6, which you linked to, had a hull number of DOS-5. Mir was DOS-7, Zvezda is DOS-8. DOS in this case is Durable Orbital Station, not Disk Operating System. Salyut numbers don't match up because both civilian DOS stations and military OPS (Orbital Piloted Station) stations flew under the Salyut banner, in order to hide the military nature of the OPS program. Additionally, Salyut numbers were not assigned stations that failed before they could be made operational, in the typical Soviet style of covering up mistakes.

--
#include <signature.h>
Re:Looks familiar by Confusador · 2011-09-29 20:05 · Score: 1

Its dimensions are somewhere between Progress and Salyut, which makes sense given that it's currently being used like Salyut as a testbed, but will eventually be used like Progress as a resupply craft for a larger station.

Re:Made in China by S.O.B. · 2011-09-29 06:46 · Score: 1

They keep the good stuff like the melamine "enhanced" baby formula.

I try to avoid any Chinese products because if they'll poison their own children with melamine what would they be willing to do to us.

--
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.

Re:Made in China by euyis · 2011-09-29 07:07 · Score: 1

Actually only the best are exported, and in China "export quality" is a synonym of top quality goods. Domestic customers get only the second-class products and services.

Yes, it's quite hard to believe that...

Re:Debris-Reduction Incentive by X0563511 · 2011-09-29 07:09 · Score: 1

I don't think you understand (perhaps respect is the better term) the relative velocities involved.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Re:Debris-Reduction Incentive by Jeng · 2011-09-29 07:22 · Score: 1

Ok, so help me understand or respect how the relative velocities will make it so that they cannot be nudged with a little uneven heating.

I would figure that the faster it's going the less of a nudge it would need.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.

Re:Made in China by Dunbal · 2011-09-29 07:32 · Score: 1

What does it matter when they cost 100 times less, and you have thousands and thousands of them? The Chinese have never been afraid of screwing up big time. There are plenty more Chinese. Very blunt, but true. No government anywhere really gives a damn about its people. It gives a damn about staying in power.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

you just nominated yourself, D'oh! by Thud457 · 2011-09-29 07:33 · Score: 1

Dude, it's Wikipedia...

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:you just nominated yourself, D'oh! by Coren22 · 2011-09-29 07:53 · Score: 1

Except that if I added one, it would be immediately reverted. I won't do Wikipedia edits until they fix that problem.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:you just nominated yourself, D'oh! by HeckRuler · 2011-09-29 08:35 · Score: 1

When was the last time you tried?

Re:Debris-Reduction Incentive by Dunbal · 2011-09-29 07:35 · Score: 1

I'm just wondering how you plan to get the energy to power said lasers. With solar panels maybe you could fire the laser every couple years or so... doesn't seem very efficient.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

China - The replacement for the US? by ALeader71 · 2011-09-29 07:38 · Score: 1

Yet another example of something the US can no longer afford. I wonder how we'll like living in a post-US, post-Western world?

--
Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato

Re:China - The replacement for the US? by cpghost · 2011-09-29 21:27 · Score: 1

Maybe a post-western world will be a more peaceful world. Or maybe not.

--
cpghost at Cordula's Web.

Re:Debris-Reduction Incentive by X0563511 · 2011-09-29 08:11 · Score: 1

The problem would be tracking the debris accurately enough... you have to hold the laser on-target continuously for long a long enough period to cause the desired effect, and unless you are in a similar orbit to the debris, you won't have very much time to do so at all.

The kinds of orbit changes required to line up with such debris is also very expensive (in regards to expended fuel) if you plan to do so to help mitigate that first problem.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Re:Debris-Reduction Incentive by Jeng · 2011-09-29 08:19 · Score: 1

I would figure that targeting would occur using a mirror so it's not like you would have to maneuver the complete craft, and one would hit the junk each time it came around till it no longer comes around.

Also the further away from the junk you are the easier it would be for the mirror to target the junk.

I'm mainly looking at the really small space junk for this, not like knocking satellites out of the sky. Paint chips, nuts, and bolts. Little nudges.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.

Re:Debris-Reduction Incentive by Jeng · 2011-09-29 08:23 · Score: 1

I am not talking Zeus levels of laser power here.

I am talking Wicked Laser levels of laser power. This isn't going to knock stuff straight out of the sky, just nudge it, and nudge it, and nudge it some more.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.

Re:Debris-Reduction Incentive by X0563511 · 2011-09-29 08:28 · Score: 1

That actually makes it worse - you can't detect them until they are close, and any (read: most) that does not share your orbital elements is only going to be in the vicinity for a very very short time (a second or two). Meanwhile, you have to detect it, aim the mirror, compensate for (apparent) motion, and keep the laser on target.

Keep in mind you have to damp the mirror, and since you just moved it so abruptly there is going to be some oscillation for a moment after the initial "acquisition" - by the time it's steady enough that you can actually warm the target, it's already gone.

Keep in mind you also have to counteract the motion of the mirror, because that will (subtly) rotate the body of the satellite as well. Newton's first and all that.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Anyone else... by mdm-adph · 2011-09-29 08:47 · Score: 1

...thinking of the Chinese space station in World War Z?

--
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed

Re:Debris-Reduction Incentive by Jeng · 2011-09-29 09:17 · Score: 1

Thanks. You've given me something to think on.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.

Show the love, people! by thefuz · 2011-09-29 10:05 · Score: 1

Dear China,
Thank you. I love you. You're the best!
- Fan of space
PS - Please launch a probe to Mars ASAP. Be sure to provide the highest quality live feed of launch and resulting Martian arrival directly to MSNBC and Fox News.

Re:Made in China by tragedy · 2011-09-29 10:58 · Score: 1

I should point out that the Chinese response to the 2008 melamine baby formula scandal was three death sentences (two carried out), three life imprisonments and various other criminal charges. So it appears that the Chinese do, in fact, take the poisoning of their children seriously.

wow. China is steeping up all right. by WindBourne · 2011-09-29 15:25 · Score: 1

On the one hand, they have launched a nice space station.
At the same time, they are gearing up to attack Vietnam and the phillipines, and warning India to steer clear of Others properties that China wants.

Here the party demands war and here they warn india to steer clear or be attacked as well

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:wow. China is steeping up all right. by WindBourne · 2011-09-30 02:10 · Score: 1

The global times is owned by Communist Party. More importantly, the think tank IS an extension of Chinese gov. as well as the party. It is not separate like it is in the west. Therefore when both the party allows this and the 'think thank' states it, then it is semi-official thought. Chances are high that internally, that is what the party is thinking but dares not give up an official statement. THis is their unofficial statement. The second is again an indirect threat. CHinese gov. does not like to give official statements but makes veiled threats.

The only idiot is the apologists chinese coward : youself.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:wow. China is steeping up all right. by jafac · 2011-09-30 06:43 · Score: 1

All I have to say, in reply,, to my fellow citizens, is: "Keep shopping at Wal Mart. Suckers."

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:wow. China is steeping up all right. by WindBourne · 2011-09-30 08:04 · Score: 1

Pretty sick, is it not?

I go to great lengths to buy American, and if not American, then nations that have decent trade policies with us. For example, we needed to pick up a soccer ball for our son. Went to Sports Authority and it was all from CHina. So, we are going to go to Soccer stop and pick up one from Italy. It costs about 3% more, but higher quality and helps us, as opposed to hurts us (EU buys more goods from us than does CHina; Most of what CHina buys from us is resources and steals everything else).

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Skylab?? by WindBourne · 2011-09-29 15:37 · Score: 1

Actually, they have not. Skylab was far more capable and MUCH larger. But hey, it was a good first step for them.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Current orbit by Dr+La · 2011-09-29 20:45 · Score: 1

Anyone know what orbital plane/altitude it's at?

It currently is in a 198 x 345 km orbit inclined 42.8 degrees.

--
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse

Re:Debris-Reduction Incentive by lamer01 · 2011-09-30 05:20 · Score: 1

I respectfully disagree. You can calculate their trajectory ahead of time and have the mirror movements precalculated. It's not like these objects will be randomly shot down. You can observe their orbit over time and calculate precisely where they will be when they get within firing range.

Re:Debris-Reduction Incentive by X0563511 · 2011-09-30 05:43 · Score: 1

True enough, I suppose a network of the 'killer' sharing detections could do it. - eg "yea, I couldn't hit that one, but it appears #31248761 can in about 187.17 seconds, so lets tell it"

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Slashdot Mirror

China Launches Space Station Laboratory Module

126 of 178 comments (clear)